MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1869584712 · doi:10.5539/ijef.v7n11p110

Determinants of Microfinance Repayment Performance: Evidence from Small Medium Enterprises in Malaysia

2015· article· en· W1869584712 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
L. Shu-Teng, M. Suraya-Hanim, M. N. Annuar

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Economics and Finance · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicMicrofinance and Financial Inclusion
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMicrofinanceCollateralLoanBusinessFinanceParticipation loanNon-conforming loanSmall and medium-sized enterprisesFinancial systemWorking capitalTerm loanNon-performing loanEconomicsEconomic growth

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Microfinance was introduced in Malaysia to provide financing services to the poor and Small Medium Enterprises (SME) to start up business. The borrower may use the facility to finance business activities such as to purchase assets and additional capital to expand their business. Microfinance helps SME that have limited access to get loan from financial institutions. Financial institutions specifically commercial bank refuse to provide microfinance facilities to SME due to the high default rate among the majority of borrowers who obtain loan without collateral. In addition, the percentage of non-performing loan (NPL) of microfinance in Malaysia has been increasing. Therefore, the objective of this research is to analyze the determinants of SMEs loan repayment performance in Malaysia. Results showed that there are four variables with significant relationship towards loan repayment namely educational level, business experience, amount of loan and loan tenure.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score0.073

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.048
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.206 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations22
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Economics and FinanceSame topicMicrofinance and Financial InclusionFrench-language works237,207